Dios se revela

Numerous theories and debates exist regarding ADHD and how to successfully

manage students with this disorder in a classroom. Some research suggests that properly medicating a student will produce the desired academic and behavior affect (DuPaul & Stoner, 2003). Other studies theorize that an extremely controlled environment that does not offer the physical space or opportunity to become distracted will produce positive results (DuPaul & Stoner, 2003). Further studies suggest that parents, teachers, and school administrators do not know enough about ADHD and its symptoms to be able to successfully engage and teach students with ADHD. This clearly implies that additional research is needed to know why ADHD students’ degrees of success vary from teacher to teacher.

The purpose of this research was to examine teacher self-efficacy when teaching

and managing students with ADHD. One independent variable, teacher knowledge, was analyzed to determine the effect this factor has on the dependent variable, self-efficacy.

Participants

Elementary, middle, and high school teachers from three rural-urban school

districts served as the target sample for this study. District 1 had over 15,500 students. District 2 had an enrollment of approximately 9,000 students. District 3’s student enrollment was near 32,000. Two of the districts were rural, and one was urban.

For the purpose of this study, elementary was defined as Grades K-5; middle

school, 6-8; and high school, 9-12. The researcher contacted the superintendents and the directors of elementary and secondary education in each school district requesting permission to recruit teachers to participate in this research. Once approval was granted, elementary and secondary principals were contacted via email (see Appendix A) asking

permission to send out the survey to their classroom teachers. Interested teachers were asked to complete the survey packet that took approximately 45 minutes to complete. All kindergarten through twelfth-grade classroom teachers were eligible to participate. Copies of all surveys were sent via email to the principal prior to the data collection day. Teachers were informed that any information given on their surveys would be kept confidential and that their principals would not see the results (see Appendix B).

Instruments and Procedures

Background information/experience. To obtain background information and

experience of teacher participants, a demographic questionnaire (see Appendix C) was created and distributed as a hard copy and through survey monkey, an online survey software. Data gathered from the demographic questionnaire were analyzed using a statistical software program, Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS).

Descriptive statistics were used to describe gender, age, and ethnic identification. Participants also answered what grade level they taught. This information is shown in Chapter 4 in Table 1. Tables 2 and 3 of Chapter 4 show how many years the participants had taught and their highest level of education; but more importantly, teachers indicated how many students they have had medically identified as ADHD. They were given ranges to select from: none, 1-5, 6-10, 11-15, and more than 15. They were also asked how many students they suspected were ADHD using the exact same ranges. These data are displayed in Table 4 of Chapter 4. Teachers were also asked the number of college courses taken that pertained to ADHD and the number of ADHD trainings or professional development they had attended since becoming employed as a teacher using the

following ranges: none, 1-3, 4-6, 7-10, more than 10. The distribution of ADHD training is illustrated in Table 5 of Chapter 4. To complete the demographic survey, teachers

were asked to indicate the kind of support their school offered teachers for helping students with ADHD. Teachers were able to mark all that applied from a menu of supports. They also had the opportunity to write out additional supports offered if it was not listed on the menu. Teachers indicated if they had a desire to receive more training for teaching students with ADHD. Figure 1 in Chapter 4 shows the school support services offered at the schools.

Teacher knowledge and training. To access teacher knowledge of ADHD,

teachers completed KADDS (see Appendix C; Sciutto et al., 2000). This rating scale consisted of 39 items and was designed to measure teacher knowledge and

misperceptions about ADHD as it related to symptoms and diagnostic criteria, treatment, and general information about the origin and course of the disorder. Participants read statements about ADHD and rated each statement as true, false, or don’t know. The items on the questionnaire referred to both positive and negative indicators of ADHD in order to account for a negative response bias. Sample items from the survey included “ADHD children are frequently distracted by extraneous stimuli” (symptoms),

“Antidepressant drugs have been effective in reducing symptoms for many ADHD children” (treatment), and “In order to be diagnosed with ADHD, the child’s symptoms must have been present before age 7” (general information; KADDS; Sciutto et al., 2000). Surveys were scored according to the number of questions answered correctly. The higher the percent correct, the higher the teacher knowledge of ADHD.

The results of teacher overall knowledge of ADHD are displayed in Chapter 4 in

Figures 2, 3, and 4. Figure 2 shows the percent of correct answers on KADDS; Figure 3 shows the percent of incorrect answers; and Figure 4 displays the percent of don’t know answers. In order to examine teacher knowledge within each of the three subscales of

KADDS, their responses were grouped. The first subscale consisted of 15 items assessing general knowledge about the nature, causes, and outcome of ADHD. The second subscale of KADDS included nine items assessing symptoms and diagnoses of ADHD. The final subscale of KADDS included 15 items assessing the treatment of ADHD. The percentage of the correct, incorrect, and don’t know responses on the KADDS subscales are presented graphically in Figures 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10. These figures are located in the results chapter. Table 6 illustrates the breakdown of ADHD subscale don’t know responses versus incorrect responses.

A correlation analysis was computed to investigate the relationship between

teacher level of knowledge of ADHD and their prior training and experience with ADHD. The correlation analysis was conducted to examine the relationship between teacher levels of knowledge of ADHD and theirs level of confidence in teaching a student with ADHD. In each analysis, a positive, negative, or no correlation was revealed

between teacher level of knowledge of ADHD and their prior training and experience with ADHD as well as the relationship between teacher level of knowledge of ADHD and their level of confidence in teaching a student with ADHD. These data are shown in Table 7 of Chapter 4.

Cultural knowledge. The next component of research examined cultural

knowledge. Teacher expectations of students with ADHD were assessed using teacher responses to questions based on a series of vignette descriptions of hypothetical children with ADHD symptoms (see Appendix C). Following the vignette were questions that teachers answered based on their opinions as teachers. Each vignette described children with symptoms of inattentiveness and hyperactivity. The vignette described elementary school aged children who meet the criteria for ADHD-Combined Type. Following is a

sample vignette from KADDS:

Daniel is a 9-year old boy. Daniel’s teacher describes him as always moving, from squirming in his seat to wandering around the classroom, chattering

endlessly instead of doing his work. His teacher says that Daniel doesn’t do what she asks him to do, such as cleaning out his desk despite constant instructions. He starts work late because he often misplaces what he needs. While doing his work, he gets sidetracked into doing something else and turns in his work without checking. According to his parents, Daniel never seems to focus on what they say or ask of him, even when they repeat themselves. His behavior with others his age is similar. He often intrudes on what they are doing, and doesn’t wait for his turn or concentrate on what’s happening in their games. (Scuitto et al., 2000, p. 85)

To account for differences in teacher expectations for behavior based on gender

(Pisecco, Huzinec, & Curtis, 2001; Sciutto, Nolfi, & Bluhm, 2004), the presentation of vignettes was counterbalanced for gender of the child described in the vignette. Half of the teachers read about a girl first, followed by a boy. The other half of teachers read about the boys before the girls. Ten questions accompanied each vignette with only names changed to match the child in the vignette. Teachers provided a rating of each question on a Likert-type scale from 1 to 9. One meant not at all, 5 meant moderate, and 9 meant extremely. The first seven questions assessed teacher expectations of how severe the ADHD symptoms were, and the next two questions assessed the perceived impact the student’s behavior had on the teacher such as frustration and stress related to teaching the student. The tenth question assessed teacher confidence in implementing an intervention with the child.

Teacher responses from the vignette were computed by summing the scores from each vignette. Responses are indicated in Table 8 of Chapter 4. Results show the number of respondents who believed the behavior was “not at all serious,” “moderately serious,” or “extremely serious.”

Teacher self-efficacy. The final set of data examined teacher self-efficacy.

Teacher self-efficacy was measured using the short form of the Teachers’ Sense of Efficacy Scale (TSES; see Appendix C; Tschannen-Moran & Hoy, 2001). This 12-item scale measured teacher efficacy in three areas: student engagement, instructional

strategies, and classroom management. Each question began with some variation of “How much can you do to . . .” or “How well can you. . . .” Sample questions from each subscale include “How much can you do to motivate students who show low interest in school?” (engagement); “To what extent can you craft good questions for your students? (instructional); “How much can you do to get children to follow classroom rules?” (management; TSES; Tschannen-Moran & Hoy, 2001).

Teachers rated their confidence levels on a Likert-type scale from 1 to 9 with

anchors of 1 (nothing), 3 (very little), 5 (some influence), 7 (quite a bit), and 9 (a great deal) in their ability to address student engagement, instructional strategies, and classroom management when teaching students with behavioral challenges such as ADHD.

Ratings from TSES were summed to create a total mean score with higher scores

representing high levels of efficacy. In addition, a regression analysis was performed to test for a correlation between all independent variables: demographics, teacher

knowledge of ADHD, cultural knowledge and the dependent variable, and teacher self- efficacy. Results are shown in Table 9. Table 10 displays a correlation between ADHD

knowledge and teacher efficacy in student engagement, instructional practices, and classroom management. Figures 11, 12, and 13 show frequencies of participant levels of engagement, instructional practices, and classroom management.

Assumptions

The assumptions from this research were that teachers revealed their true beliefs

and experiences and were transparent when responding to the open-ended questions. Another assumption was that researcher bias would have a minimum role in the findings of this study.

Limitations

One limitation to the study was the reliability of self-report. Information given from participants cannot be verified, as all information given was to remain confidential and could not be shared with anyone.

Delimitations

This study was restricted to teacher efficacy and ADHD students. Conclusions

are not to be extended beyond teacher efficacy and ADHD students.

Human Participants and Ethical Precautions

To ensure the protection of the participants in this study, the researcher followed the guidelines as outlined by the Institutional Review Board (IRB). The first

consideration involved collecting signed informed consent statements from all participants. The following safeguards were outlined in the informed statement:

• Participant real names were not to be used in the data collection or in the written report.

• All materials would be safely secured in a file cabinet to safeguard confidentiality.

• All materials would be destroyed upon completion of the study.

• Participation in this study was strictly on a voluntary basis. No children were spoken to or questioned. Participants had the right to withdraw from this study at any time without penalty.

Summary

Research indicates that at least one student in every classroom has ADHD and

suffers from symptoms such as inattention, hyperactivity, daydreaming, interrupting, fidgeting, and blurting out. Teachers are often trying to manage these behaviors and teach these students without sufficient knowledge or training on ADHD.

Teacher efficacy, the belief in one’s ability to impact student learning, is thought to influence academic success. This dissertation explores the teacher efficacy of teachers serving students with ADHD in the elementary, middle, and high school settings utilizing a quantitative methods approach.

Although educational researchers have studied teacher efficacy, few have studied

teacher efficacy as it pertains to teaching students with ADHD. This study addressed how teachers of ADHD students perceive their ability and confidence to impact their students’ learning based upon their knowledge of ADHD. Teacher knowledge was analyzed to determine the effect it has on self-efficacy.

The participants consisted of elementary teachers from rural-urban school

districts. Background information and demographic surveys were created and distributed as a hard copy and through survey monkey. Data gathered were analyzed using SPSS.

To access teacher knowledge of ADHD, teachers completed KADDS. A

correlation analysis was computed to investigate the relationship between teacher levels of knowledge of ADHD and their prior training and experience with ADHD. Cultural

knowledge was assessed using a series of vignette descriptions of hypothetical children with ADHD symptoms. Teachers answered questions after each vignette based on their opinions as teachers.

The final set of data examined teacher self-efficacy. It was measured using the

short form of TSES. This 12-item scale measured teacher efficacy in three areas: student engagement, instructional strategies, and classroom management. Teachers rated their confidence levels on a Likert-type scale from 1 to 9. A regression analysis was

performed to test for a correlation between teacher knowledge of ADHD and teacher self- efficacy.

The assumption from this research was that teachers were transparent when

responding to the open-ended questions. Another assumption was that researcher bias had a minimal role in the findings of this study. The study was limited because it could not be generalized to all school districts across the state. Another limitation to the study was the reliability of self-report. Information given from participants could not be verified as all information given was to remain confidential and could not be shared with anyone.

This study was restricted to teacher efficacy and ADHD students. Conclusions

are not to be extended beyond teacher efficacy and ADHD students. The findings of this study will generate a holistic understanding of teacher efficacy and thus benefit multiple audiences in the educational community. This further understanding of teacher efficacy can then be used in support of positive school reform for teachers and students. Also, the results of this research will be beneficial to teacher education programs. Finally, this research will illuminate a better understanding of teachers who work with ADHD students and promote further research and recognition of teachers who teach students

Chapter 4: Results